[fg_admin]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]IV. 26 CFR SEC. 1.6091-2(2005) IS AMBIGUOUS, CAPRICIOUS, AND CONTRARY TO 26 U.S.C. SEC. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) or 6091(b)(4).[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Petitioner was given no notice his duty to file and pay was required in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Panel does not say. App. A-7. If this Court finds Sec. 1.6091-2(2005) controls the duty to “file”, Petitioner requests this Court hold the Panel's application of Sec. 1.6091-2(a)(2005) ambiguous, capricious, arbitrary, and contrary to the direct words of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) and 6091(b)(4). 1.6091-2(2005) reads:[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”income tax returns…shall be filed with the person assigned the responsibility to receive returns at the local [IRS] office that serves the legal residence…of the person required to make the return.” App. U-3[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel never holds where this “local office” is located by law. App. A-7. The Grand Jury alleged the place to file by law was in Austin, Texas, or Tulsa, Oklahoma. App. JJ-13. Tulsa, Oklahoma is not designated as a “local [IRS] ofice” to receive tax returns or payment of taxes. There was no notice to the public of any “person assigned the responsibility to receive returns” or payment anywhere in the State of Oklahoma. Neither was “Austin, Texas” such a place designated and directed by the SOTT. No public accessble Tulsa office exists.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Prior to September 16, 2004, proposed changes to Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6091-2, the version applicable to years 2000 through 2004, directed tax return forms be filed with “district director for the [IRD] in which is located the legal residence…of the person required to make the return.” App. U-13. The 2005 changes were substantial under the Panel's application. 26 CFR Sec. 301.7701-10(2000-2012) defines “District Director” to mean within each IRD. App. U-15. See Also Sec. 601.101. App. U-16.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]26 CFR Sec. 301.7514(a)(2)(ii) identifies to the public the SOTT's District Director delegation and seal for the State of Oklahoma was at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. App. U-15. Tulsa, Oklahoma is never mentioned. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Prosecution explained on appeal (App. RR-4):[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”Since 2004, the Treasury Department regulations have required individual taxpayers to file at their local office or at an IRS Service Center specified in the applicable tax return instructions.”[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]No mention of any place in “Oklahoma” in any non-accompanying instructions. The Prosecution entered no evidence of who or where the local office for Petitioner's residence is located and found with a “responsible person.” Section 6091(b)(4) explains “Hand Delivery”:[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”to the Secretary…in the internal revenue district referrred to in paragraph [(b)](1)(A)(i)…under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” App. U-3[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]26 CFR Sec. 1.6091-2(2005) is manifestly contrary to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) and 6091(b)(4). “A regulation may have particular force if it is a substantially contemporaneous construction of teh statute…” National Muffler Dealer's Assn. Inc. v. U.S., 440 U.S. 472, 477 (1979). “The question to be asked did Congress address the question at issue by the regulation.” Chevron v. National Resource Defense Counse, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43(1948). “[w]e turn to an agency regulation…if the statute is silent or ambiguous.” Id. This Court said it would only intervene when the agency rule is “arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig, 541 U.S. 232, 242 (2004).[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]”Filling gaps in the [IRC]…requires the Treasury…to make interpretive choces for statutory implementation…” Mayo Found. For Med. Edu. & Research v. U.S., 131 [/background]S.Ct[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]. 704, 713 (2010). “Proplery promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the force and effect of law.” Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 295 (1979).[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel holds Sec. 6091(a)'s “any return” covers “tax returns” required by Sec. 6091(b). App. A-7 No finding of what law requires Petitioner to file tax returns or pay taxes in the State of Oklahoma. Section 1.6091-2 specifically identifies Sec. 6091(b). App. U-13.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]This Court stated the requirement to file a “tax return” is a “regulatory requirement.” Hubbell v. U.S., 530 U.S. 27, 35 (2000). The Prosecution emphatically denied any Treasury Regulations were involved in the duty to file a Tax Return or pay taxes. App. QQ-2. Yet they provide a second bill of particulars listing “regulations thereunder”. While the Prosecution does not list 26 CFR Sec. 1.6091-2(2005) in its second bill of particulars, App. QQ-2, they turn to it in their appeal brief, App. RR-4, and the Panel saves the entire conviction on the 2005 version. App. A-7. Taxes are “enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.” Thompsos/Center, 504 U.S. at 512 (n.4). Yet, the purpose of the criminal division is to promote “voluntary compliance.” LaSalle, 298 U.S. at 309. “Given [U.S. v. Sullivan], it cannot fairly be said that taxpayers are 'volunteers' when they file their returns.” Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648, 652 (1976). But compare U.S. v. Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542-43 (10th Cir. 1986)(“Treasury regulations establish voluntary compliance as the general method of income tax collection.”)(citing 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6301).[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The “jury must find that the defendant was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating.” Bryan v. U.S. 184, 194 (1998). The Panel nor jury could have found Petitioner aware he was required to file a tax return pursuant to Sec. 6091(a), or pursuant to Treas. Reg. 1.6091-2(2005), for calender years 2000 through 2007, because it alleged Petitioner was required to file in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which no statute or regulation has ever placed the duty for a person in Petitioner's location to file anywhere in the Counties that the Court instructed to the Jury. App. N-6. Although the Jury could not find Petitioner aware of Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) and (b)(4), if properly instructed, no person could find Petitioner intentionally violated Sec. 6091(b), nor failing to pay under Sec. 6151, without the existence if IRDs.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Any penalty under these circumstances is cruel and unusual. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]V. TENTH CIRCUIT'S APPLICATION OF SEC. 1.6091-2(2005) TO TAX YEARS 2000 THROUGH 2004 VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, CL. 3'S EX POST FACTO PROHIBITION AND 26 U.S.C. SEC. 7805(b). [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Count One , Two, Three and Five, involve the duty to “file” tax return forms for calender year 2000 through 2003. Count Six is for years 2004 and Count Four is for 2005. App. JJ. Count One's paragraph 6, that income tax return forms have not been “filed” for many years was incorporated into all Counts of the indictment. App. JJ-8.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel held since all IRDs no longer exist, App. A-7, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6091(a), instead of Congress's Sec. 6091(b), controlled the duty to “file” a tax return. App. A-7 In making this violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment, the Panel turns to Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6091-2(2005). App. A-7. They omit reference to “(2005)” but the terms they quote unmistakably derive from the 2005 version. App. U-13. Compare 2000 through 2004 version. App. U-12 & 13[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Though the Panel does not say where Petitioner's duty to “file” is to be made, they reply upon “local [IRS] ofice” and “person assigned responsibility.” App. A-7. This version of Sec. 1.6091-2 did not exist in 1999 through most of 2004 and was not the official version until April, 2005. Again, no notice given of what those terms mean.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The ex post facto clause flatly prohibits retroactive application of penal legislation. Landgraf v. USI Film, Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266 (1994). “Fair warning” is the test. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall 386 (1798). Though the Panel does not identify any “local [IRS] office” so designated to receive returns or payment, 26 CFR Sec. 301.7514-1(a)(2)(ii) lists “Oklahoma City” as the office of District Director. App. U-15. Brewer, 486 F.2d at 509. The Panel agreed 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72 places a limit on Congressional power outside Washington D.C. App. A-6 See Hughes v. U.S., 953 F.2d 531, 542 (9th Cir. 1992).[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]26 U.S.C. Sec. 7805(b) prohibits ex post facto application, i.e. “retroactive” application, of properly promulgated Treasury Regulations. Such regulations must not be applied ex post facto and is “an abuse of the Secretary's discretion.” Auto Club of Michigan v. CIR, 353 U.S. 180, 184 (1957). See also Mayo Found. Med. Edu. & Research v. U.S., 131 [/background]S.Ct[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]. 704, 713 (2010). The Secretary “must follow steps Congress has specified.” Reece v. Scoggins, 506 F.2d 967, 971 (5th Cir. 1975)[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Tax Laws protect “both the government and the taxpayer.” U.S. v Brafman, 384 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 1967). “Tax officials and taxpayers alike are under the law not above it.” Id. “Maticulous compliance” is the test to avoid penalty. Allnutt, 523 F.3d at 413-414.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Panel admits IRDs and District Director offices no longer exist, App. A-7, but the Tenth Circuit, as recently as July 5, 2011, held the Court lacked jurisdiction based upon a treasury claim not being filed in the “internal revenue district.” Green v. U.S., 438 F. Appx. 863, 867 (10th Cir. 2011). For 12 years the Tenth Circuit continued making decisions as if the IRDs and District Director offices existed. See Peoples Source Int'l v. U.S., 198 F. Appx. 776, 779 (10th Cir. 2006); Goodman v. U.S., 185 F. Appx. 725, 728-29 (10th Cir. 2006); U.S v. Dawes, 161 F. Appx. 743, 745 (10th Cir. 2005); March v. IRS, 335 F.3d 1186, 1189 (10th Cir. 2003). 26 CFR Sec. 1.6091-2(2005), applied to years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, violates the Constitution and Sec. 7805.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]VI. RULE OF LENITY SHOULD OTHERWISE APPLY TO ALL SIX COUNTS[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The rule of lenity “leads us to a more lenient interpretation of criminal statutes when after consulting traditional cannons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute.” Kasen v. Saint Gobain, 179 [/background]L.Ed[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]. 2d 379, 391 (2011). Lenity is appropriate where tax statutes “carry no additional requirement of willfulness.” Thompson/Center, 504 U.S. at 517. Lenity should apply to a legal impossibility.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]=====================================================[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]PayPal:[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]gnutella@mindspring.com[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]_________ Springer[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer, 02580-063[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]FCI Big Spring[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]1900 Simler Ave[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Big Spring, TX 79720[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thanks,[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey & Family[/background]

[fg_admin]

II. CONGRESS PLACES THE DUTY TO FILE TAX RETURNS AT SEC. 6091(b).

Congress places the duty to file “Tax Returns” at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) and 6091(b)(4). App. U-3. Petitioner moved to dismiss due to the President having not established “convenient” IRDs pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621. App. NN. Petitioner claimed there IRDs had not existed since late 1999. App. NN-4. Prosecution agreed but argued the IRDs were not totally abolished until October, 2000. App. OO-4.

Section 6091(b), subtitled “Tax Returns”, reads in part:

“In the case of returns of tax required under authority of Part II of this subchapter [26 U.S.C. Secs. 6011, et seq.] App. U-3

The Prosecution alleged Secs 6011 and 6012, App. PP-2, and the Panel identified Sec. 6012. App. A-8. This undeniably shows the “Tax Returns” were quired under Sec. 6091(b) only. The Panel switched the requirement to Sec. 6091(a). App. A-7. The Panel's 6091(a) requirement regarding “Tax Returns” is in direct conflict with several Circuit Courts. See Byers v. Intact, Inc., 600 F.3d 286, 293 (3rd Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Garmann, 748 F.2d 218, 219 (4th Cir. 1984); Allnutt v. CIR, 523 F.3d 406, 413-14(4th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Calhoun, 566 F.2d 969, 973(5th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. Buga, App. Lexis 20967 (6th Cir. 1998); U.S v. Grabinski, 727 F. 2d 681, 684(8th Cir. 1983); U.S. v. Miller, App. Lexis 21468 (8th Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Stuckey, 646 F. 2d 1369, 1378 (9th Cir. 1980); U.S. v Brewer, 486 F.2d 507, 509 (10th Cir. 1973); U.S. v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 634 (10th Cir. 1987).

In each case above, the Courts found Sec. 6091(b), and not 6091(a), the requirement to file “Tax Returns” directed by Congress. “But if the indictment lay the offense…on an impossible day…the objection is fatal as if no time at all had been inserted.” Ex Parte Baine, 121 U.S. 1, 8 (1887). Without a place there is no failure to “file”. To punish Petitioner in this instance is cruel and unusual punishment.

III. THE PANEL CHANGE TO SEC. 6091(a) VIOLATES THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS ART. III, SEC. 2, CL.3 & ART. I, SEC. 9, CL.2

The Panel decision changing the Grand Jury's alleged requirement to “file a “Tax Return” under Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) and 6091(b)(4), to Sec. 6091(a), violates the Fifth Amendment Right not to be held “unless on a…indictment of a Grand Jury” and its prohibition against deprivation of liberty and property without due process. Petitioner's Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial on the Grand Jury's Indictment is also violated by the same chagne the Panel made from Sec. 6091(b) to 6091(a). Congress has also provided Petitioner with the right to appeal any adverse decision to the United States Court of Appeals pursuant to Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2, to which the Panel change to Sec. 6091(a), during appeal jurisdiction, does violence.

A. Fifth and Sixth Amendment Violations.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits any person be held to answer for any infamous crime unless presented by Grand Jury indictment. Hamling v. U.S., 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974). “An indictment is amended when it is so altered as to charge a different offense from that found by a grand jury.” U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 90 (1944); citing Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 8 (1887). “To uphold a conviction on a chareg that was neither alleged in an indictment nor presented to a jury at trial OFFENDS THE MOST BASIC NOTION OF DUE PROCESS.” Dunn v. U.S. 422 U.S. 100, 106(1979).

(i) Language of Grand Jury charges identifies “Tax Returns”

Count One alleges Petitioner was required to file “individual income tax returns” in Para. 6, App. JJ-2, and the object of the conspiracy was to impede, impair, obstruct, and defeat the IRS's “lawful functions” in their assessment and collection of “Federal Income Taxes.” App. JJ-3

The means alleged was premised upon the Grand Jury's claims over Springer's income (para. 10), “Springer's expeneses” (para. 11), “Springer's income” (para. 12 and 13), and that Springer refrained from filing Form 1040 with the IRS (para. 14)(Form 1099s were also alleged by the Grand Jury but conceded during Trial by the Prosecution.) App. JJ-3

Count Two, Three and Four, allege evasion attempt of the Tax imposed by Title 26, describing the conduct in terms such as “taxable income,” “substantial income tax due and owing”, and “by failing to FILE a United States Individual Income Tax Return as required by law.” App. JJ-8. Count Five and Six allege failure to File “an income tax return” “required by law” at the “local office of the [IRS] at Tulsa, Oklahoma”, or at the IRS Service Center at Austin, Texas. App. JJ-13.

Petitioner was granted two Bills of Particulars. The first explained the Grand Jury's meaning of “required by law” and the Second defined “regulations thereunder.” (First, App. PP)(Second, App. QQ). Petitioner moved to dismiss due to the impossibility of “filing” “as required by law”, from 1999 to present, due to to the IRDs and each IRD's District Director, or designated office of the SOTT therein, being “defunct.” Allnutt, 523 F. 3d at 408 (n.1). App. NN. Prosecution opposed but agreeing at all relevant times IRDs were “abolished.” App. OO-4

The Prosecution argued however that Sec. 6091(b)(1)(:cool:(i) governed Petitioner's duty to file Tax Returns since he did not live in any IRD. App. OO-4. The District Court held Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i). App. E-5.

Section 6091(b)(1)(A)(i) directs “filing” “Tax Returns” “in the internal revenue district” of “the legal residence…of the person making the return.” App. U-3; Brewer, 486 F.2d at 509; Taylor, 828 F.2d at 634. Section 6091(b)(4) directs “Hand Carried returns” “be made in the [IRD] referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i)…as the case may be.”

Section 6091(b)(1)(:cool:(i) directs “Tax Returns” of “persons who have no legal residence…in any [IRD]…shall be made as such place as the Secretary may be regulation designate.” App. U-3; See Miller, App. Lexis 21468, App. XX (citing Sec. 6091(b)(1)(:cool:(i). For calender years 2000 through 2004, a person who did not live in any IRD was to “file” their “Tax Returns” with the District Director in Baltimore, Md. App. U-13. Prosecution argued in opposition to dismissal that 26 CFR Sec. 1.6091-2(2005) controlled the requirement to file prior to the First and Second Bill of Particulars. App. OO-5. A Bill of Particulars “clarifies,” See U.S. v. Hoy, 330 U.S. 724, 730 (1947) and is “amplifying.” U.S. v. Crescent Amusement, 323 U.S. 173, 180 (1945).

In its Second Bill of Particulars the Prosecution explicitly denounced any Treasury Regulations were involved in the requirement to file a Tax Return and omitted Sec. 1.6091-2 from the list of regulations. App. QQ-3. The Grand Jury indicted Petitioner under the belief that Petitioner was required to “file” a “Tax Return” without resorting to any Treasury Regulations. The Prosecution changing with the wind on this claim for dismissal shows the Panel's change to Sec. 6091(a) unconstitutional. The Panel's changes to Sec. 6091(a) is not what the Grand Jury alleged in each Count. Section 6091(b) is “divorced” from Sec. 6091(a).

Petitioner was not indicted in each Count “for failing to 'file tax returns'” required by Sec. 1.6091-2 in Baltimore, Md. for years 2000 through 2004. The language the Prosecution uses shows it relied upon Sec. 1.6091-2(2005) for years 2000 through 2005. App. OO-5. The fact the Grand Jury alleged “Tax Returns” places the requirement under “Part II” which unmistakably falls under Sec. 6091(b), and not 6091(a), as the Panel held. App. U-3. The Panel's change to 6091(a) deprived Petitioner of his right to appeal the impossibility at issue below regarding Sec. 6091(b).

(ii). Due Process requires Notice of the Law and what is intended.

The “duty” or “obligation” the Panel affirmed requiring the “filing” of a “Tax Return” and payment of taxes shown therein owed was not the duty alleged by the Grand Jury. The Fifth Amendment requires an indictment, Hamling v. U.S., 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974), and the Sixth Amendment requires a trial and verdict on that indictment. Booker v. U.S. 543 U.S. 220, 232 (2005). The “Internal Revenue Code ties the duty to pay Federal Income Taxes to the duty to make an income tax return.” Hollywell v. Smith, 503 U.S. 47, 53 (1992). The words of a statute “must be read in their context with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Davis v. Michigan, 494 U.S. 803, 809 (1985).

The tax system is complex. Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574, 596 (1983). A Statute must be “explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties.” Connelly v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Fair warning of the conduct prohibited is the test. U.S. v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954). No one is “required…to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes.” Bouie v. Columbia, 387 U.S. 347, 351 (1964). The line must be clear. McBoyle v. U.S., 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)

The line must be understandable. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000). No word is void. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001). There are no “common law crimes.” U.S. v. Easton, 144 U.S. 677, 687 (1892). The “rule of strict construction [applies] when interpreting [a] regulation or a statute.” U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, 465 (1960).

This case involves multiple statutory construction and the begining is with the “language of the statute.” Estate of Coward v. Nichols Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475 (1992). “The Place fixed for performance fixes the situs of the crime.” Johnston v. U.S., 351 U.S. 215, 220 (1956).

“An offense…means the transgression of law.” Moore v. Illinois, U.S. 14 How. 13, 14 L.Ed. 306 at 19 (1852). The “proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws.” Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192, 200 (1991). Congress has made “specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses.” Id.

Each Count alleges Petitioner acted willfully in conspiring to impede the IRS's “lawful functions”, attempting to evade the tas imposed by Title 26 regarding taxes on adjusted gross income, and failing to file Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns “as required by law.” App. JJ. Ignorance of the law is an excuse especially when it is not definite or knowable. Id. at 199.

Count Two, Three, and Four's alleged violation of Sec. 7201 is “calculated to induce…fulfillment of every duty under the income tax law.” Spies v. U.S., 317 U.S. 492, 497 (1943). Section 7203's willful failure to file Form 1040s is a lessor included offense into each of the Six Counts. The First Bill of Particulars identified 26 U.S.C. Secs. 6011, 6072, 6091, 6151, and 7203, defining “required by law.” App. PP-2 The Prosecution placed the obligation under Sec. 6091(b), and not 6091(a), as the Panel switched. App. OO-4, compare App. A-7.

Petitioner had no duty under Sec. 6091(a) alleged in the indictment. Tax Returns and Payment fall under Sec. 6091(b). App. U-3. Section 6091(b) required Petitioner to “file” any “required” “Tax Return” with the “place” in the “internal revenue district of Petitioner's residence. See Sec. 6091(b)(1)(A)(i). App. U-3. This is essential to establishing “jurisdiction and venue.” Brewer, 486 F.2d at 509; see also Taylor, 828 F.2d at 634 (“matter of law”). See also Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3.

“A paper is filed when it is delivered to the proper official and by him received and filed.” U.S. v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76 (1916). A Federal Court is “constrained” by the words of a statute.Id. at 77

Besides having to prove a “tax deficiency” as to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four, the Prosection was required to prove to the jury:

“that the law imposed a duty on defendant…defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntaryily and intentionally violated that duty.” Cheek, 498 U.S. at 201.

Section 6091(b)(1)(A)(i)'s “made to the Secretary…in the internal revenue district” is the duty and Sec. 6151's duty to pay is inexorably linked. Hollywell, 503 U.S. at 53. The Term “file” comes from the latin term “filum” and means to deliver. Lombardo, Id. at 76. Though Sec. 7203 references “file” in its heading it never mentions it in the statute's language. “Failing to file a return is thus the same as-not broader than failing to 'make a return.'” U.S. v. Street, 370 F. Appx. 343, 345 (2010); citing U.S. v. Dunkel, 900 F.2d 105, 108 (7th Cir. 1990).

Petitioner moved to dismiss and judgment of acquittal on grounds internal revenue districts and District Director offices no longer existed. App. NN. The Prosecution responded agreeing and that the duty to file and pay for all years thus derived from Sec. 6091(b)(1)(:cool:(i). App. OO-4. Accordingly, the duty to file and pay purportedly derived from “regulations” under 26 CFR 1.6091-2(2005). App. OO-5 For years 2000 through 2005. App. JJ. The Court denied the Motion without making any formal findings or a merits based analysis. App. D, App. E-7 & O-13

The Court's duty is to “enforce it according to its terms.” Carminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917). It is the jury which must find “any particular fact that the law makes essential to a defendant's punishment.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 232. The Panel switching to Sec. 6091(a) and its “any return” is not the law governing “tax returns.”

On Appeal, Petitioner sought reversal as the Court's decision to deny Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, allowing the charges to go forward to trial, was clearly erroneous. At trial, the Court instructed the jury that if Petitioner lived in Creek County Oklahoma he was required to file a tax return and pay taxes in the Northern Judicial District. App. N-6. Over Petitioner's numerous objections. App. O-5

The Panel switch to Sec. 6091(a), besides not being the law governing “Tax Returns”, changed the entire charges to which Petitioner was to defend. “The Federal Tax System is basically one of self assessment…whereby the taxpayer computes the tax due and filed the appropriate form of return along with the requisite payment.” U.S. v. Galletti, 541 U.S. 114, 122 (2004). The “provision of information in 1040 is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes.” U.S. v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (n.13)(10th Cir. 1990). The system relies on self reporting and self assessment. U.S. v. Rodger Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805, 816 (1984). Where is self reporting to occur?

“The elements of a statutory offense may not be so changed by Judicial interpretation as to deny the accused defedants a fair warning of the crime punished.” Slawn v. California, 431 U.S. 595, 601 (1977). A “statute which …requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning…violates the first essential of due process of law.” Bouie, 378 U.S. at 351. The phrase “Tax Return” is not defined at Sec. 6091 or 7203. See U.S. v. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094 (7th Cir. 2007). Section 60111 requires every person use the “Forms…prescribed by the Secretary.” Otte v. U.S., 419 U.S. 43, 52 (1974). “Congress has given discretion to the [CIR] to prescribe by regulation Forms of Return and has made it the duty of the taxpayer to comply. CIR v. Lane-Wells, 321 U.S. 219, 223 (1944). Prosecution expert agreed. App. I-15; L-7

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________ Springer

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here hoping these words continue to draw your attention to the extent God allows. Since my Petitions are docketed, I am sending you in a series of emails each Part of the Criminal Petition first then the Civil Petition. Thank you for your continued prayers and support as I could not have accomplished these words without God and you. Here is where the Petition begins:

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of ceritiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions of the United States court of appeals appear at Appendix A to the Petition and is unpublished per curiam.

The opinions of the United States district court appear at Appendix O, P, R, and are unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was October 26, 2011. A timely petition fo rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on the following date: November 28, 2011, and a copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix T. An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certioari was granted to and including April 26, 2012, on February 16, 2012, in Application No. 11A791. Jurisdiction of the Court of first instance was in dispute and was asserted to arise under 18 U.S.C. Section 3231. The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Article III, Section 2, Cl. 2 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1254(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Fifth, Sixth, and Sixtheenth Amendments, Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl.2 and 3; 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 and 3231; 26 U.S.C. Sec. 61, 63, 102, 6011(a), 6012(a), 6072, 6091(a) and (b), 6151, 6201(a), 7201, 7203, 7514, 7601, 7602(a) and (b), 7808(b), 7621(a) and (b), 7801, 7805(a) and (b); 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(1)(:cool:, 3507, and 3512(a) and (b); P.L. 105-206, Sec. 1001; 5 CFR Sec. 1320.8(b)(3); 26 CFR 1.6011, 1.6012, 1.6091, 301.7514, 301.7701-10, 601.101, et seq.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The President ceased establishing Internal Revenue Districts pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621(a) or (b) by calender year 2000. App. OO-4. Petitioner contends the tax law considers the money he receives as “gifts” and “donations” excluded from “gross income” calculations. Petitioner did not “file” Form 1040s for any year at issue claiming a legal impossibility without “Internal Revenue Districts” identified at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6091(b), as articulated at 26 CFR Sec. 1.6091-2(2000-2004). The Secretary of the Treasury changed this regulation in 2005.

From years 2000 through 2004, Attorney Oscar Amos Stilley represented a corporation out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, named NESCO. NESCO was controlled by Eddy Patterson. In April, 2003, Patterson and his Wife were indicted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Doublas Horn and Melody Noble Nelson (“Horn and Nelson”) out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, for various crimes. Revenue Agent Donna Meadors was “cooperating agent” with Horn and Nelson. App. OO-15. Stilley represented Eddy Patterson at trial.

Patterson was found guilty along with his wife on December 16, 2003. App. W-1. Stilley's representation was terminated in January, 2004. On January 26, 2004, cooperating agent Meadors issues Summons to Petitioner. App. V-1. On May 3, 2004, Horn and Nelson, along with Special Agents of the Secretary's IRS, interviewed Ms. Patterson. App. X-1. On May 6, 2004, Horn and Nelson, and Special Agent Tim Arsenhault, interviewed Eddy Patterson in the “on going criminal investigation” of Petitioner and Stilley. App. W-2. Patterson was a supporter of Petitioner's ministry. App. G-9. Neither Stilley or Springer knew Pattersons during the conduct alleged against them. App. G-7.

Eddy Patterson entered a post trial plea agreement with Horn and Nelson. App. W. Ms. Patterson received a Rule 35(b) at the same time. App. X. On October 26, 2003, Ms. Patterson testified before Horn and Nelson's Grand Jury in the “Matter of Lindsey Springer and Oscar Stilley.” App. Y. She testified to transactions between 2000 and 2003, the same years of Meadors reasons for issuing Summons. Y-14

Petitioner cooperated fully with Meadors Summons unaware of the Grand Jury. On December 2, 2004, Meadors closed her investigation and thanked Petitioner for his cooperation. App. Z. In March, 2005, Petitioner learned of Notice of Intent to Levy for 1990 through 1996. App. AA. In June, 2005, the Secretary purportedly issues an institutional referral for years “2000 through 2004” only. App. CC. This letter refers to “Brian Shern” as contact person. App. BB-2

On September 16, 2005, Shern and Ten other Secretary's Special Agents of the “Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Division”, App. EE-2, searched Petitioner's home pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7608(b) authority. App. EE-2. Prior to the search, Petitioner acquired a $ 250,000.00 loan from prosecution witness Patrick Turner. App. I-4. Turner held lien on an RV purchased with the proceeds of the loan. App. I-3. Petitioner agreed to make $ 1400.00 payments upon renegotiating the loan. App. I-6

Stilley was subpoenade by Horn and Nelson's Grand Jury with the option of turning over documents to Grand Jury agent Brian Shern. App. OO-17. Stilley was repeatedly told he was not a target of the Grand Jury by Horn and Nelson when he actually was. After meeting with Shern and Special Prosecutor Charles O'Reilly, Petitioner was indicted on March 10, 2009, along with Stilley, for conspiracy to impede the lawful functions of the IRS, Tax Evasion of Petitioner's liabilitites, and that Petitioner failed to file U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns for years 2000 through 2007. App. JJ. Failure to file is a lessor included offense in all Six Counts and is inexorable to the alleged conduct. App. PP.

Petitioner waived counsel after an approximate 10 minute colloquy with the trial judge. App. C-25. Petitioner moved to dismiss on various grounds including the alleged Form 1040 violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, money given Petitioner was treated as income excluded from the calculation of “gross income”, the place Congress directed “Tax Returns” be filed no longer existed, and evidence obtained by Meadors, Fred Rice, Brian Shern, was gathered without Congressional authorization due to both institutional committment to prosecute in 2004 and gathered after June 3, 2005, institutional referral for “2000 through 2004”. All Special Agents involved were prohibited.

The Court ordered Two Bill of Particulars. The first defined “required by law” and the second defined “regulations thereunder.” The Prosecution proclaimed the Grand Jury indictment is not relying upon any Treasury Regulations.” App. QQ-2. The Trial Judge denied all Motions to Dismiss by minute order. App. B; App. C-27; App. D; App. E-5.

At trial Petitioner's defenses were centered around money being income excluded from the calculation of “gross income”, the Grand Jury's “Form 1040” and “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” was not in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction and venue due to the revenue districts not existing.

The Trial Court instructed the Jury Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act, defined “gift” to exclude “income”, and that if Petitioner lived in the Northern Judicial District of Oklahoma, he was required to file Tax Returns and Pay taxes in Tulsa. Petitioner was found guilty after 3 days of being hung and sentenced to 15 years, and ordered to pay $ 690,000.00 to the Secretary for years 1990 through 2007, and the State of Oklahoma $ 80,000.00. On Appeal, the Panel changed the duty at issue, held Form 1040 was “divorced” from the duty, regulations control, and all revenue districts no longer existed.

I. IN THE ABSENCE OF INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICTS AND DISTRICT DIRECTORS OFFICES, AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE LAWS RELATED TO INTERNAL REVENUE OUTSIDE WASHINGTON D.C.

The Panel holds the Secretary of the Treasury (“SOTT”) and its “rule” made Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) need no authority or law expressing enforcement of laws related to internal revenue within each of the 50 States. App. A-7. The Panel holds correctly “Internal Revenue Districts” (“IRD”) no longer exist. App. A-7. However, the Panel holding the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, P.L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 “abolished internal revenue districts and district directors” is clearly not what Public Law 105-206 (“RRA”) intends.

Section 1001(a)(2) directs the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (“CIR”) to develope and implement a plan to reorganize the SOTT's IRS. App. U-9. This “plan” is to “eliminate or substantially modify the existing organization of the [IRS].” 112 Stat. 685, 689 (7.22.98). There is no mention of “IRS” in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621. App. U-5. No mention in Secs. 7514 or 7601 or 7602 and 7608. “Congress, by [sec] 7601, has required the [SOTT] to canvas revenue districts.” U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308 (1978). Summons and Search Warrants must be issued for a “Congressionally authorized purpose.” Id. at 318. The IRS is created at 26 CFR Sec. 601.101 by the SOTT. Snyder v. IRS, 596 F. Supp. 240, 247 (N.D. Ind. 1984). Commissioner is not above the President.

The SOTT “proceeds through each internal revenue district.” U.S. v. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141, 145 (1975). See also Donaldson v. U.S., 400 U.S. 517, 523 (1971)(7601 “flatly imposes upon the [SOTT] the duty to canvas and inquire.”) “Without jurisdiction the Court cannot proceed at all in any case.” Steel v. Citizen for Better Envt., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). The presumption is against jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Gauradian Life, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Judicial districts do not coincide with Internal Revenue Districts. See Rush v. U.S., 286 F. 2d 862, 864 (10th Cir. 1958). See Grunsted v. CIR, 136 T.C. 455-58(2011).

Without IRDs the Secretary is not authorized to canvas and inquire. The Panel held IRDs no longer exist. App. A-7. The RRA only affects the agency IRS and no statutes duly enacted and codified by Congress were abolished or changed. If Congress intended the RRA to abolish the President's IRDs then it should have repealed every provision of law which relies upon the President establishing IRDs. The Secretary's Treasury Regulations, which are voluminous, have not been changed. If Congress intended what the Panel holds then why in 12 years has Congress not removed the authority under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7601 and 7621 and explained the Secretary's authority and structure? The Panel's decision the RRA abolished IRDs and District Director Offices renderes the term “district” in the Sixth Amendment meaningless as well.

Petitioner accepts Congress may delegate authority to executive agencies to implement its programs. See Lichter v. U.S., 334 U.S. 742, 778 (1948). However, as the Panel recognized, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72 prohibits the power Congress granted to the Secretary from being exercised outside D.C. “unless expressly provided by law.” App. U-2. The Panel agrees with words but identifies no provision of law allowing the Secretary to exercise his authority outside Washington D.C.

Whether it be the exercise of “lawful functions” alleged in Count One, or how the tax imposed is imposed in Counts Two, Three, and Four, or simply not filing tax return forms alleged in Six Counts “as required by law”, without IRDs established conveniently by the President pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7621(a) and (b), or District Director offices therein, no jurisdiction or venue to enforce tax laws was established.

[Part 2 coming soon]

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________ Springer

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here thanking each of you who have supported my efforts to require the United States to honor the laws written by those who were inspired to protect due process of law related to taxes. I praise God every day for you.

I am glad to report to you that my Supreme Court Petition involving my imprisonment has been docketed on May 2, 2012. Docket # 11-0096 The Civil Petition where they took my house a week before I was sentenced in the May 2, 2012, case above, has also been docketed on May 4, 2012. Docket # 11-10034 The interesting thing is how they were many months apart and now they are two days apart with the civil case being docketed last.

What both cases should show you is how the United States has disregarded the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308-318(1978) creating what is called a “prophylactic rule” preventing Congress's power given to the Secretary of the Treasury being exercised by the Secretary while the criminal provisions of the Tax Laws are also being enforced through Grand Jury indictment.

This rule is based upon Title 26 being authorized for enforcement by the Secretary of the Treasury through 26 U.S.C. Section 7801 and 7805(a). Because only Grand Juries can indictment, as secured by the Fifth Amendment, the Secretary of the Treasury cannot enforce Title 26, Section 7201 through 7215, called “offenses against the United States”.

To remedy this, the Supreme Court created a prophylactic rule that forbids U.S. Attorneys or the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, from presenting to a Grand Jury any tax related offenses, unless first the Secretary of the Treasury makes an institutional referral for specific years and listing all taxes at issue for prosecution. The consequence of referral prevents the Secretary from exercising Congressional Authority for the years and taxes presented in the “referral.” This is called a line of demarcation.

In my situation, in October, 2004, a U.S. Attorney empaneled a Grand Jury for years 2000 through 2003. By June, 2005, a letter of referral appears for “2000 through 2004.” At the same time, the Secretary began a civil investigation for 2000 through 2003 on January 26, 2004. This civil investigation was closed on December 2, 2004. October, 2004 is between these two dates clearly.

Beginning in Marcy, 2005, the Secretary sought to levy me on years 1990 to 1996. This would appear to be outside the June, 2005, referral. Soon you will see it is not. By August, 2005, I had filed action to protect my rights regarding the March, 2005 levy which again is for 1990 to 1996.

On September 16, 2005, my home was raided by 11 Special Agents of the Secretary's IRS with a search warrant being levied pursuant to the Secretary's authority at 26 U.S.C. Section 7608(b ). The June 3, 2005, referral letter specifically names two of the Special Agents levying the search warrant under the Secretary's authority. So, both knew the referral had been made but it was secret.

Of course, they stole money and for three years I prevailed against them in federal court. Then in 2010, after I am in prison, the Tenth Circuit reversed denial of immunity claims involved in the theft taking place on September 16, 2005, holding that the Secretary's Special Agents could not be held liable since no case ever told them they could be held liable for a theft they accomplished while in my house with a Search Warrant.

What is interesting in that case, the Tenth Circuit found the capacity in my home on September 16, 2005, of the Special Agents, was as if no referral had been made. No one knew except the Government.

The Grand Jury alleged on September 16, 2005, I gave materially false statements to Special Agents, alleged as “Internal Revenue Service employees.” That could not be the case if the referral occurred on June 3, 2005. The Grand Jury also alleged from the “late 1980s” through 2009, I had not reported gift transactions on Form 1040 to the IRS. Count Five alleged for year 2005 which was outside of “2000 through 2004.”

Neither 1990 to 19999, or 2005 to 2009, are listed in the referral. Even at sentencing, the Court thought it's jurisdiction was not limited to “2000 through 2004” in ordering restitution from 1990 to 2007. The Tenth Circuit ignored this issue entirely.

So, in August, 2007, the Secretary issued a Certificate of Release for 1990 to 1996. On May 9, 2008, the Secretary allegedly authorized me to be sued civilly for 1990 to 1996 disregarding the releases. After I brought it to their attention, the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice directed the Secretary of the Treasury to revoke those releases and issue new liens.

Without a single hearing with the District Judge in the civil case, the Court granted the Tax Division the relief it sought in its complaint which was to take my home. All the while, I am prevailing since 2006 over the theft of money in my home taken by purported Special Agents even though a referral had been made months earlier than the when the theft occurred.

Within one week the Civil Court took my home of 14 years and sentenced me to 15 years in prison and ordered me to pay restitution to the Secretary for years 1990 to 2007.

On Appeal, the Tenth Circuit refused to address this issue. Even after trial, the Secretary's “agents” were levying me for 1990 to 1996 which a Jury had just convicted me for conduct involving 1990 through 1996.

I would point out here Grand Juries do not have “grand jury agents.” No exceptions. When the Secretary decides he has enough evidence to make a criminal referral, he makes the referral and offers the testimony and documents he has accrued during his non referral authorized in-house investigation. Any agent obtaining information that ends up causing a referral to issue to a U.S. Attorney, is always allowed like any other witness, to testify before the Grand Jury as a witness. But no employee of the Secretary becomes an agent for a Grand Jury. Nor can the U.S. Attorney impanel a Grand Jury after referral and then use the Secretary's agents with Secretary authority to enforce the tax laws to gather evidence for them to present to the Grand Jury involving the one referred.

The Supreme Court has held the Grand Jury stands between the person referred and the Secretary's evidence as an unbiased arbiter of the evidence. The Grand Jury would lose their independence if the Secretary's agents became, witnesses, Grand Jury agents, and maintained Special Agent authority simultaneously.

I realize Grand Juries independence has been severely violated by the United States for many years but no better time than now to take the Constitution back, God willing.

I hope this has helped you understand the LaSalle prophylactic rule and how once a criminal referral is made to a U.S. Attorney, or an institutional commitment can be shown by evidence, the Secretary's authority from Congress STOPS until the U.S. Attorney refers the years and taxes back to the Secretary in the same manner in which the referral was made.

My future threads will now involve the words from my two Petitions. I will send them as marked “part 1” and “part 2” and indicate which case they are from. As of now I will send the criminal case first. Without your support recently I could not have accomplished the docketing in the Supreme Court and wish to thank you. My the lord Jesus Christ bless you ten times for your giving. I believe he will. Amen.

Lindsey Springer

5.5.12

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________ Springer

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here hoping these words find you blessed and highly favored. In this thread, I wish to address the significance, or better words may be “impact”, the Tenth Circuit's holding in their opinion rendered against me where they decided the requirement to file or “deliver” a “tax return” is DIVORCED from the Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Have you given much thought to this position of law? What is a “Form 1040” and why does it say “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” on its face page? In consideration of this “divorced” theory, the law clearly inexorably links the requirement to deliver a “Tax Return” and pay taxes to the word “Form”. See 26 U.S.C. Section 6011 and 26 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.6011-1. What is at stake is how the Fifth Amendment applies to the requirement to file a tax return and pay taxes. Have you thought of all the ways in which electronic data searches can be used by the Government on your Tax Form? Just ask yourself how can the information I provide be used or even used against you personally.

For purpose of the offense of willful failure to file a tax return, the term “return” is not defined by Congress at 26 U.S.C. Section 7203. The term “return” also appears at 26 U.S.C. Sections 6011, 6012, 6091, and 6151. So, what is meant by “return”? The Supreme Court has found, where words are not defined by Congress, that Congress gave authority to the Secretary of the Treasury at 26 U.S.C. Section 7805(a) to prescribe all “needful rules and regulations..” The Tax System must have meaning attached to the term “return” and “file” or it means nothing legally.

At section 6011, Congress directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe all “Forms and regulations” to any person liable for any tax, and to provide “information required by such forms and regulations.” So, return is not defined, but “every person required to make a return…shall include therein the information required by such forms and regulations.” Here, Congress links the term “return” to shall “according to the forms.” Still though, no “Form 1040” or “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” is specifically mentioned by Congress.

Remember, we have “form” and “regulation” at Section 6011 and regulation at 7805 which allows “needful..regulations” and rules. 26 Code of Federal Regulation (“CFR”), which is what the term “regulations” connects to at both section 6011 and 7805, the Secretary at section 1.6012-1(a)(6) states: “Form of Return. Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under this paragraph.” The “return” being a “Tax Return.”

The phrase “general use” implies you and I must use but more is needed under the Tenth Circuit's erroneous construction of the tax laws. 26 CFR Section 1.6011-1(b ) entitled “Use of Prescribed Forms” and directs each taxpayer must “set forth fully and clearly the information required to be included.” Section 1.6011-1(a) directs “shall make such returns…as are required by the regulations” and the “return…shall include therein the information required by the applicable regulations or FORMS.”

So, the phrase here important is “information required by the applicable…Forms.” Yet, the Tenth Circuit [and Sixth Circuit] held the requirement to deliver or file a “Tax Return” is “divorced” from Form 1040. The Tenth Circuit went further and held “an actual Form 1040 may not even be necessary to comply with the statutory obligations.” There is room in criminal law for the term “may”.

In the Grand Jury indictment against me and Oscar Stilley, the Grand Jury alleged specifically I was required to file Form 1040 and U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns as “required by law.” At Trial, the U.S. District Judge instructed the Jury to Form 1040 and the expert presented by the U.S. Attorney testified to Form 1040 as did the Special Agent. The Secretary of the Treasury prescribes rules at 26 CFR Section 601.101 to 601.105. Section 601.103(a) requires taxpayers to “file a prescribed FORM OF RETURN.” Section 601.104(a) states “Returns must be made on the Form Prescribed by the Secretary.”

But wait, there is more. The Supreme Court has held since 1944 that “Congress has given discretion to the Commissioner to prescribe by regulation FORMS OF RETURN and has made it the duty of the taxpayer to comply.” CIR v. LANE WELLS, 321 U.S. 219, 223(1944) In 2004, the Supreme Court said “The Federal Tax System is basically one of self assessment…whereby the taxpayer computes the tax due and then files the appropriate FORM OF RETURN along with the requisite payment.” U.S. v. GALLETTI, 541 U.S. 114, 122(2004).

The Tenth Circuit has held “provisions of information in 1040 is inexorably linked to the statutory requirement to pay taxes.” U.S. v. COLLINS, 920 F.2d 619, 630 (n.13)(10th Cir. 1990) In U.S. v. DAWES, 951 F.2d 1189, 1192(10th Cir. 1991), the Tenth Circuit held “its through Form 1040 the government obtain all the tax information it requires” (which now includes affordable health care information to penalize or let you pass by without penalty).

In U.S. v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259, 263-64 (1927), the Supreme Court denied a Fifth Amendment protection claim against Form 1040 explaining “the form of return provided” and “to write any word upon the government blank.” What does “provided” mean? What is a “government blank”? It means the government is asking questions by use of Forms and the “government blank” is where you provide that information or answer to the questions.

If no question is asked no answer is owed. Think about it this way. Where would you provide the information regarding your affordable health care purchase if it was not requested on Form 1040? How would you know to tell on yourself that you deserve to be penalized for not signing an insurance contract of health if the information was not sought on Form 1040?

Without a Form 1040 what information would you provide? If the Form does not warn you of certain usage of the information you provide, the law says you are not required to provide that information period. See Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26, 32-40 (and note 6)(1990). This includes affordable health care penalty information.

So, when you wonder why the Tenth Circuit divorced Form 1040 from the requirement to deliver a Tax Return, the reason is otherwise they would necessarily have to address that Form 1040 does not comply with the law written by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. Form 1040 is not “divorced” but “inexorably linked.” Surely, we can all see that the requirement to file a tax return has nothing to do with penalties under the affordable health care act. The penalties associated with affordable health care are just the sort of penalties the Paperwork Reduction Act's “public protection” protects any person from being subject to.

I wish to thank you for keeping up with these issues I have addressed in my Two Supreme Court cases (clearly shows by having two that the LaSalle rule has been violated). If you are so led please consider helping me as I can only convey just how difficult this pursuit has been. I will discuss other issues in future threads. Once this week I have received confirmation of docketing I will send out my entire briefs in emails like this. Currently, I cannot even begin to type as two cases has left me with only $ 8.00 on my books at prison. Thank you,

Lindsey Springer 4.21.12

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________ Springer

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

[fg_admin]

XII. THE PANEL REFUSES TO REVERSE COUNT FOUR THOUGH THE ENTIRE THEORY OF LIABILITY IS BASED UPON A “LOAN”

“[t]he standard…of gross income…excludes loans.” James v. U.S., 366 U.S. 213, 219-20(1961). “[a] loan agreed to be repaid does not constitute gross income.” U.S. v. Swallow, 511 F.2d 514, 523 (10th Cir. 1975). “[g]ross income” does not extend to “economic gain…otherwise exempt.” CIR v. Banks, 543 U.S. 426, 433 (2004). Besides the Court defining “gift” in violation of several due process rights, the Court allowed the Jury to consider a “loan” in August, 2005, as “gross income” for 2005. App. K-10. Turner testified this was wrong. App. I-9

Count Four involves a $ 250,000.00 loan to buy an RV then worth twice the purchase price before the economy tanked. Both the loan and purchase of the RV were made within a few days of each other. App. I-3. Mr. Turner held the only secured lien interest in the RV. App. I-12. Petitioner made $ 1400.00 payments for almost three years before he became so devastated by the Prosecution's investigation. His ministry supporters, after being called before numerous grand juries, ceased their support for fear of further harassment. After trial Turner repossessed the RV as Petitioner was unable to sell the RV or commit to make any further payments.

The theory of Count Four is entirely not a tax evasion crime in 2005. Even if the loan became “gross income” (and it never did) when Petitioner ceased making payments, that occurred in late 2008, not in 2005. App. K-11. The Court allowed the expert to testify he believed the loan should be treated as “gross income”. App. K-10. The first time Petitioner ever even heard anyone thought a secured loan was gross income was during trial. Petitioner was not aware of the Prosecution's theory nor were they. App. K-10

XIII. THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO DENY DISMISSAL BASED UPON DETERMINATION MONEY GIVEN PETITIONER WAS OR WAS NOT “GIFTS” HAD NOT YET BEEN MADE, RESULTING IN FACT FINDER DETERMINING BOTH THE ISSUE OF GIFT AND TAX LIABILITY, CONFLICTS WITH CIR V. DUBERSTEIN.

The 16th Amendment explains Congress' power to lay and collect a tax on income from whatever source derived. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 (1916). Congress excluded from the calculation of “gross income” all gifts. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 284 (1960). Duberstein held “Gift” is not used in Section 102 in the “common law sense” but rather in the “colloquial sense.” Id. at 284-85. The SOTT has not defined “Gift” under his rule making authority. There is no question gifts over a certain amount are taxes by the SOTT to the donor.

Petitioner was tried by Jury in this criminal tax case. Petitioner moved to dismiss each Count based upon this Court's holding in Duberstein that the Court was not “to allow trial of the issues whether receipt of a specific payment is a gift to turn into a trial on the tax liability.” Id. at 289. App. OO-7 The Prosecution opposed asserting the Jury could determine both gift and liability. App. OO-7. At trial, the Prosecution focused on “donor” intent and in every case the person who gave Petitioner money had not filed any gift return. The Court explained to the Jury (App. M-7):

“In determining whether payment of money, or property to the Defendant is non taxable gift, you should consider the intent of the parties at the time the payment is made. In determining whether a transfer of money is a 'gift' for tax purposes, the question is whether in actuality the transfer is a bona fide gift or simply a method for paying compensation for services.”

Petitioner objected to the Court's entire instruction on “Gift” and “minister's income” as they were not derived from the law. Petitioner demonstrated that “Compensation for Services” was defined at 26 CFR 1.61-2(2000-2012) to be “on the basis of a percentage of profits.” App. U-12 After defining “willfulness” and “good faith”:

“you are instructed that if a defendant had a good faith misunderstanding of the laws requirement to report income at issue here…you will be guided by the rules set forth in the next two instructions.” App. M-4

The Bill of Particulars identified Sections 61 (“gross income”) and 63 (“taxable income”). Taxable income is defined to mean “gross income minus deductions and exemptions.” App. U-2 The Trial Court went against Duberstein and instructed the jury on its “maxims of experience.” Duberstein held “Gift” “had no principals of law but rather maxims of experience.” Any determination of a tax deficiency or duty to make and then file a tax return at issue in all six Counts turns on the meaning of “Gift” at Section 102. This Court recently held “[T]here is no criminal evasion without a tax deficiency.” Boulware v. U.S. 170 L.Ed. 2d 34, 40-41(2008).

To further frustrate Petitioner, Count One alleged Petitioner “told [IRS] employees [3 months after June 3, 2005 referral for 2000 through 2004 only] that all funds he received are gifts and donations, that he does not have any income and…does not provide any services for payment.” App. JJ-4. Special Agent Shern did not remember whether Petitioner actually said “any gross income.” App. L-10. The Court defining “Gift” and “minister income” in its “maxim of experience” deprived Petitioner of a Jury Trial on their maxim of experience as this Court in Duberstein held was the Fact Finder's role.

The Court equally ignored Duberstein's directive not to allow trial of gift transactions to turn into a trial on tax liability stemming from those transactions. The Court also used the term “gross income” interchangeably with “income” instructing the Jury gifts or income. Section 102 makes “Gifts” excluded from “gross income.” In fact, the Court's entire instruction on “Gift” Petitioner had no prior notice of. The Jury could not find Petitioner was aware of the Court's definition at the times the “Gifts” were transacted.

Petitioner's “maxim of experience” was no better on display than in three events. First, SEC v. TIGC, et al., 212 F.3d 180, 185-86(2000); Cert Denied 532 U.S. 905(2001) where the United States confiscated $ 1.265 million in donations baed upon claim Bondage Breaker's Ministries and Petitioner gave no “consideration.” See 993 F. Supp. 324, 325-26(E.D. PA 1998). Second, Petitioner's experience with the Supreme Court's “In Forma Pauperis Application” clearly considers “Gifts” as “income” not excluded from it. App. SS-2. The Third event is reading Section 102 and Duberstein. Everything including “Gifts” are money coming in. The question is not whether the money was “income” but rather “gross income.” Making “Gifts” excluded from “income” to the jury violates so many aspects of due process and Petitioner's right to a Sixth Amendment Jury Trial the verdict is just unreliable.

Even where every second of time Petitioner spent with each donor was a “service” the donations sometimes in the Tens of Thousands of dollars exceeded the value of the (undefined) services which could be measured as pennies on the dollar. Many Circuits have made the mistake of “Gift or income”. Lane v. U.S., 286 F.3d 723, 728 (4th Cir. 2002); Potito v. CIR, 534 F.2d 49, 52(5th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125, 1134(7th Cir. 1991); Woody v. U.S., 386 F.2d 658(9th Cir. 1966). The District Court and now Panel “abused their discretion by making an error of law.” Koon v. U.S., 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996).

The Panel explained “the Court gave the Jury the task of determining whether any transfers were gifts or income.” App. A-1. The Panel ignored Duberstein, citing to U.S. v. Kasynski, 284 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir. 1960) which was a refund case and not a criminal tax case. All “Gifts” are “income” but excluded from “gross income”. The Trial Court held “income” and gross and taxable income “terms of art.” Appp. K-3

XIV DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION FOR YEARS IN RESTITUTION AND IT WAS UNREASONABLE FOR THE COURT TO USE CIVIL CONDUCT FOR 2T1.1.

The Panel refused to hold the Judgment solely based upon “relevant criminal conduct”. See USSG SEc. 2T1.1(2005). The “referral” was limited to tax years “2000 through 2004”. App. BB-1 The Trial Court derived its “Tax Loss” from 1990 through 2007, and from Stilley's proposed tax liabilities, which were not at issue in the referral. App. Q-2. The Trial Court though held they were. App. O-7. Section 2T1.1 “only permits consideration of 'relevant criminal conduct' underlying the charged offense.” U.S. v. Meeks, 998 F.2d 776, 781 (10th Cir. 1993). The “relevant conduct” must be criminal not merely civil. U.S. v. Daniels, 998 F.2d 540, 544 (6th Ci. 1992). The Court should have dismissed Counts One and Four, and limited its “relevant criminal conduct” to 2000 and 2003 regarding “Tax Loss” as no charge existed for 2001, and 2002 and 2004 were for failure to file only. The Court's restitution order exceed its jurisdiction.

XV. TOUGHY REGULATIONS DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.

Agent Meadors who violated LaSalle's rule in 2004 closed her “investigation” thanking Petitioner for his cooperation. App. Z-1. Petitioner proceeded in forma pauperis causing the Trial witnesses to be subpoenaed at Government expense. The Trial Court refused to issue a subpoena for Meadors asserting Petitioner had not complied with “Touhy” regulations. App. O-12 This Court explained in U.S. v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 467 (1951) it was not addressing “refusal to produce in a prosecution by the United States.” All Petitioner need show is Meador's testimony would have favored his defense. U.S. v. Guild, 341 F. Appx. 879, 886 (4th Cir. 2009); see Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). Meadors not testifying was simply “unconscionable”. Jenks v. U.S. 353 U.S. 657, 671 (1957). The Panel disagreed. App. A-13; L-6 to L-9

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________ Springer

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

[fg_admin]

Lindsey Springer here hoping each of you are blessed and that God answers are your needs. I have two dates to watch and pray for. First, is my Criminal Petition for Writ of Certiorari due this month, and Second, my civil case returns for the third time where they took my home and suspended Mr. Barringer for pointing out that internal revenue districts no longer exist. Interestingly, the Tenth Circuit, in the Criminal case, found internal revenue districts no longer exist showing they were just retaliating against me and Barringer for forcing them to acknowledge what the law really is.

The questions presented herein are simplified versions to what I am presenting to the Supreme Court. The reason this may grab more attention is due to the obligation most people would have to report their insurance status to the IRS on Form 1040. In the criminal case against me, the Tenth Circuit overturned the Grand Jury indictment, where I was alleged to be required to file a “Form 1040” and “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” for 2000 through 2005, and held the requirement to file a tax return is “divorced” from Form 1040. Yep, seems hard to believe since at trial the Court told the Jury Form 1040 did not violate the Paperwork Reduction Act and both Special Agent Brian Shern and Revenue Agent Brian Miller testified the Form 1040 was the Form required (Miller did have trouble answering those questions though).

The Fact the Tenth Circuit held Form 1040 was divorced from the obligation to file a tax return is shocking. That they would move the requirement out of 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b ), and into 6091(a), is simply erroneous. That they would affirm all Six Counts on Treasury Regulation 26 CFR 1.6091-2(2005) after the Government, in its Court ordered Second Bill of Particulars, denounced any connection with any Treasury Regulations, and never cited 1.6091-2 in that Second Bill of Particulars, each are equally not in accord with due process or the Grand Jury indictment.

That the Tenth Circuit would apply a 2005 Treasury Regulation to years 2000 through 2004 both violates the ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 9, Cl. 3, and 26 U.S.C. Section 7805(b ). Even the Criminal referral was limited to years “2000 through 2004”. Section 7805(b ) prohibits retroactive application of Treasury Regulations in any case, civil or criminal.

The reason why the Court was able to give such a stiff sentence was because it went beyond the referral and did so without jurisdiction. The Court prohibited me from obtaining the testimony of now Special Agent Donna Meadors who on December 2, 2004, thanked me for cooperating with her investigation. The Court said Touhy regulations overrides the Sixth Amendment. Essentially, I have to ask permission to have Meadors testify because she works for the IRS. I have obviously objected to that as being in violation of the Sixth Amendment as it clearly is.

Other areas I have hit hard are what authority the Secretary of the Treasury has after referral and what happens with that authority when a Grand Jury is empaneled and Revenue Agent simultaneously enforce, or seek to enforce, tax laws. The issue about how IRS Special Agents can enforce, or act under 26 U.S.C. Section 7608(b ), after referral, is also center stage. Special Agent Brian Shern is named in the June 3, 2005, letter of referral and on September 16, 2005, he and Eleven Special Agents, in their IRS capacity, searched my home. This is where the $ 2000 was stolen creating Springer v. Horn, et al, 06-cv-156 in the Northern District, which led to being overturned on appeal, where the Tenth Circuit granted qualified immunity to all those alleged to have stolen from me. This is where they held no case had given the Agents notice they could be held liable for stealing money during a search. Their only immunity was they were in my home as IRS Agents. If that was not true, and the June 3, 2005, letter shows it is not, then all evidence construed against me must be suppressed and the Trial Court was wrong for refusing to do so.

Besides the Paperwork Reduction Act providing a complete defense, I have also asserted the entire conviction was obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 9, Cl. 3. Consider the following:

1) Did Congress direct the internal revenue districts called for by Congress at 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b ), 7601, and 7621, be abolished in enacting the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998?

2) Is the obligation to deliver a prescribed Form of Return to the Secretary of the Treasury fall under 26 U.S.C. Section 6091(b ), as alleged by the Prosecution and maintained in the District Court by the Trial Judge, is does the requirement to file a “Tax Return” fall under Section 6091(a), as the Panel on appeal switched to?

3) Where the Prosecution denounced Treasury Regulations played any role in the obligations alleged in the indictment to deliver a “Tax Return” Form 1040 and pay taxes, was it a violation of due process and Grand Jury provision secured by the Fifth Amendment, and Jury Trial Right secured by the Sixth Amendment, for the Tenth Circuit on appeal to affirm all Six Counts on Treasury Regulation 26 CFR Section 1. 6091-2(2005)?

4) Do the Penalties imposed on Petitioner for not filing prescribed Forms of Returns to the Secretary withstand the public protection under 44 U.S.C. Section 3512(a)(1995)?

5) Is the Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return “divorced” or “inexorably linked” to the obligation to provide income tax information to the Secretary and pay taxes owed therefrom?

6) Is the District Court's Jurisdiction over the offenses limited to the years listed in the letter dated June 3, 2005, of 2000 through 2004, or is it 1990 through 2007, as the District Court proceeded to trial and sentencing ?

7) Did the Secretary of the Treasury's Agent use of his Congressional authority while a Grand Jury was empaneled, or after the June 3, 2005, referral for 2000 through 2004, violate the prophylactic rule announced in U.S. v. LaSalle, 437 U.S. 298, 308 to 317(1978)?

8) What authority to serve search warrants remains with the Secretary of the Treasury after referral?

9) At what point does a loan become “gross income”?

10) Does Tough Regulations override the Right to call witnesses secured by the Sixth Amendment for Trial?

11) Did the Court's Jury Instruction on gift which told the Jury gifts were not “income” and its decision to deny Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on issues related to the receipt of gifts, violate CIR v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 284-89(1960)?

12) Is the Tenth Circuit's finding Petitioner, during one approximately 10 minute colloquy with the Trial Judge, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, waived his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel for all stages of the Trial Process?

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers and I hope this provides you with enough information to know what to pray for. I will refile the civil case at the same time as the criminal case is filed. Once docketed, I will send out the 40 page arguments in both cases. With so much riding on the Form 1040 it is difficult the imagine the Supreme Court would endorse the public to take the position the requirement to file an income tax return is “divorced” from Form 1040. How would anyone report their insurance contract, or need to be penalized, if the issue does not arise on Form 1040? I am in need of financial help if you are so led as the costs is enormous. My exhibits exceed 600 pages and I have to mail numerous copies. Thank you for your time.

God Bless You, Lindsey Springer

4.6.12

=====================================================

Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.

PayPal:

gnutella@mindspring.com

Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):

_________ Springer

5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135

Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):

Lindsey Springer, 02580-063

FCI Big Spring

1900 Simler Ave

Big Spring, TX 79720

Thanks,

Lindsey & Family

[fg_admin]

Good article. What we need is truth, not blind optimism. America is sick, really, really sick and all the optimism in the world including electing Mitt Romney ain’t gonna change things.

Are They Insane? 58 Percent Of Americans Believe Economic Conditions In The United States Will Be Good A Year From Now

Insane Americans.

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

There is nothing wrong with being optimistic, but there is something wrong with having blind faith that things are going to get better when all of the evidence is screaming at you that things are going to get worse. According to a brand new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 71 percent of all Americans consider economic conditions in the United States to be poor right now, but an astounding 58 percent of them believe that economic conditions in the United States will be good a year from now. So what can account for this? Are they insane? Are they hopelessly optimistic? Do they not want to believe the facts that are staring them right in the face? Well, a lot of it probably has to do with the upcoming election. Most Republicans are convinced that things will be “better” somehow if Romney wins in November. Most Democrats are convinced that things will “continue to improve” if Obama wins in November. But the truth is that the economy has been declining steadily in recent years no matter which party has been in power. Today, the American Dream is out of reach for huge numbers of formerly middle class families. Millions of jobs continue to leave the United States, poverty is absolutely exploding and our nation is absolutely drowning in debt. Sadly, nothing is being done to reverse the long-term economic trends that are destroying us. So, a year from now things are not going to be any better. In fact, many analysts are absolutely convinced that things are going to be a whole lot worse by then. (Read More…..)[/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/tag/economic-trends[/background]

[fg_admin]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]EDITORIAL: Another commentary on the healthcare ruling. We didn't write this.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]___________________[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Emperor Obama’s Invisible[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Clothes[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]“He isn’t wearing any clothes all” ruled Roberts. See Obama’s nakedness. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The Democrat ruled Congress attempted to push Obamacare down our throats [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]announcing the “Congressional Mandate” that all American have to purchase [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]government health care insurance. But, it didn’t work!! Roberts says the[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]king is naked. Yea, for Roberts! [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]What Roberts did for us [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Chief Justice Roberts ruled the mandate, relative to the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]commerce clause, was UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A victory!! Congress has no power to [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]mandate American Citizens (opposite of 14th Amendment citizens under the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]jurisdiction of “The United States”) do anything outside the District of [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Columbia! What a blow for the democrats who attempted to legislate that [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]individual American families in the several states had to purchase a [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]government health product. How unconstitutional is that? Roberts’ ruling [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]means Congress cannot and may not compel any American Citizen to do [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]anything! Ever! [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Chief Justice Roberts ruled that Congress can have its [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]health care program and offer it to all U.S. persons (14th Amendment [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]citizens). It is not unconstitutional for Congress to create programs for [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]“persons” under their jurisdiction. The term “person” includes[1] an [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia.” [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]ð Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the Obama Administration m[/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]ust stop playing word games with the American people and call an ace and [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]“ace,” and a spade a “spade,” and to call a tax a “tax.” No more of this [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]non-sense rhetoric that Congress is going to raise the funds by “fees” or [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]“fines” or that the Health Care Plan is “free.” Roberts said if Congress is [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]going to create a program of this magnitude for 14th Amendment citizens, [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]then it has the power to tax to raise the revenue to fund the program. [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate universal participation, it [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]that funds Obama-care is a tax. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]This is also critical because the political magician tried to deploy word [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]tricks on the American people to convince them His trillion dollar program [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]“is not a tax.” Roberts exposed Obama’s nudity by showing us Obama’s [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]invisible clothes. The Democrats announced the program was free, that it [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]wouldn’t cost Americans anything, and that it would be funded through fines [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]and fees and penalties. With all that hocus pocus and abracadabra, no wonder [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Americans were bamboozled. Though the Imperial Wizard of deception is as [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]about as useful as the “d” in the word “fudge,” Obama’s lawyers were forced [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]to feign honesty and argue that the Obama trauma could be funded by a “tax.” [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Roberts showed us Obama’s voodoo, forced his hand, and exposed his “word [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]magic” as a tax. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars, plain and simple . . [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]. and no American can be forced to participate. Democrats now must defend [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]the biggest tax increase in U.S. history in the middle of an economic [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]recession to justify the Obama death bill. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]ð Roberts ruled it was unconstitutional for the federal [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]government to bully states into compliance by withholding their present [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]existing Medicaid funding. Remember, the compassionate Liberals, through [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Obama-care, basically said to the states — “comply with Obama-care or we cut [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]off your allowance.” Roberts said “Whoa! Stop! Nope, you can’t do that.” [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]If some states want to take the money, hook, line, and sinker, they are free [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]to snap at the lure. But, the Feds can’t penalize the states by pulling the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]rug out from underneath the states by defunding existing programs. So much [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]for “national” health care!! [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]ð Finally, it appears that Roberts ended up supporting [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]state rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]ruled the feds can’t force individual American to purchase a government [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]product; that the decision to participate in the Obama trauma is up to the [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]individual states; that the states can’t be penalized for not participating; [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]and, that the Imperial Wizard in the District of Criminals has to stop all [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]this hocus pocus and do something Obama has never done before—tell the truth [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]to the American people that his outrages program must be funded through a [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]heavy, unpopular tax bill in the middle of an economic recession. Obama [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]announced he was wearing a new set of invisible clothes with no fiber of tax [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]in them . . . and his nudity was exposed! [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Yea for Roberts!! [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Brooks[/background]

[fg_admin]

EDITORIAL: Sent to us by tax attorney Peter Gibbons

__________________

I have just finished reading the Supreme Court's decision on Obama Care. It is attached for anyone who wants to read it.

In reading this opinion, it is clear that the single biggest threat to liberty is the Supreme Court. Moreover, it is not the court itself, but rather the maxim, or theory, that the court has an obligation to construe a statute as constitutional if at all possible.

This presumption by the court is an error. If the 3 different branches of government are to be checks and balances on each other. Then it would be the duty of the court to narrowly construe, and wherever possible invalidate, statutes exceeding the limited scope of the federal government provided in the constitution.

For example, the court refers to the infamous case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942) as an example of just how far the court must go to “preserve' legislation enacted by congress from being stricken as unconstitutional. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for his own use as feed for his cattle, was in violation of the federal prohibition on growing wheat based on the commerce clause, which grants congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Obviously, if the farmer was not going to sell the wheat, but rather use it for his own consumption, there is no interstate commerce taking place and congress does not have the constitutional power to regulate. However, in the Wickard case, the court reasoned that the farmer refraining from having to buy wheat in the marketplace does 'affect' interstate commerce and therefore the federal government could regulate him under the commerce clause. Such an absurd stretch of logic still passes for jurisprudence in our highest court. In essence it changed the power to regulate interstate commerce into the power to regulate anything that may affect interstate commerce, which is a patent misreading of the constitution and a sophomoric argument at best. Alas, these are our best and our brightest.

It was not always this way. Prior to the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the Supreme Court routinely construed statutes within reasonably narrow constitutional limitations. However, Roosevelt was having problems getting his “New Deal” (/read: Raw Deal/) legislation to pass constitutional muster with the court. He became so frustrated that he proposed his famous “court packing plan.” Roosevelt proposed to pass legislation that would increase the number of supreme Court Justices from the current 9, to 18, so that he could appoint 9 new justices who would rubber stamp his unconstitutional laws.

Several sitting justices at the time saw great danger in allowing a president to so dramatically alter the balance of power, and offered to resign if Roosevelt would withdraw his court packing plan. Roosevelt agreed and three justices retired so Roosevelt could appoint his new crony's to the Supreme Court. In law school, this is referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine.” In any event, it was from that point forward that the Supreme Court embraced with fervor the current policy of finding any excuse, however thin, flimsy, or sophomoric, to find an act of congress to be constitutional.

It is this policy of straining to find constitutionality where none exists that needs to be reversed. How can the judicial branch act as a check on the legislative branch, if the judicial branch construes its role as requiring it to find constitutional basis for laws that on their face are unconstitutional? Thus, the court grasps at straws to find in favor of upholding legislation that is repugnant and antithetical to the very notion of freedom.

And so, the nanny state grows, like a cancer. And like cancer, it can only be stopped by starving it of the food it needs; your cooperation and funding. It appears that nothing will change until Americans pull their heads out, and get a clue. Communists, fascists and tyrants do not stop until such time as they are stopped by force or they run out of money, or they lose their support. We can't undermine their support, since more than 1/2 the nation is living on the dole and support theft from the productive 40%. That leaves only 2 options. Armed resistance and violent overthrow, or to cut off the funding spigot. Only a mass moratorium on payment of federal taxes can avert violence. Nothing else will get the message across.

My belief is that productive Americans lack the courage or conviction to stop paying for the abuse they are receiving from their public servants. Such a lack of courage and conviction, to simply stop paying tribute to a renegade and criminal government, informs me that armed and violent resistance will never be fruitful, because standing in the line of fire takes much greater courage and conviction than merely refusing to pay tribute. If you lack the one, you will never muster the other.

[fg_admin]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Sounds that Wake the Dead![/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Did you hear that roar this morning. . . strangely . . . at the exact moment [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]the Supreme Court ruled the Health Care Bill constitutional?[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Government now controls how much of our income we can keep.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Government controls our lands and decides how much it will tax [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]what we own. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Government controls our freedom by taxing our travel.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Government now controls our bodies and will [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]decide what treatment we can and cannot have. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Did you feel your wallet shrink? Do you feel the noose around your throat? [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Did you feel the rumble under your feet . . . it was George Washington [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]rolling over in his grave. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]So much for the bill of rights![/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]institution.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Amendment X[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or [/background][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]to the people[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Sorry, George, we let ya down!! Try and get a good night's rest. [/background]

[fg_admin]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][background=rgb(238, 238, 238)]Certiorari Denied [/background][/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer here hoping God is encouraging you to keep pressing on in the fight to discover who the Internal Revenue Service is and what Statute, Regulation, or Rule, creates what is known as the IRS.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Although I have not received any order from the Supreme Court in regard to both my cases, I have been copied the docket which shows both cases were denied Certiorari. I wish to thank you for your prayers and support along this way. 20 years ago I was introduced to a mission to help get rid of the IRS. There are many events that have happened over the 20 year period and I have done what I thought led to do in pursuit of the IRS no longer existing. I am sure someday they will no longer appear on letters, forms, instructions, or in the news paper.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I have now presented that question in multiple venues and not one single Judge wishes to address who or what establishes the current structure or organization called IRS. Its just either meritless or frivolous. Every Agency of the Sovereign gets its authority to exist and be funded from some law that Congress writes. That is not true with the current IRS. For the longest time the IRS was established by a Regulation Rule created by the Secretary of the Treasury at 26 U.S.C. Section 7805. That rule is no longer in force or valid. Since the IRS purportedly has over 100,000 employees, we need to know what created them and what sustains them. We also need to see their limitation of authority.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Although I write these words to reiterate what is the source of America's problems with its own Government and taxing power, I have no other vision on how to raise a legal question about the IRS and obtain Judicial scrutiny of that question. In fact, the Judicial branch now shows clearly they cannot and will not declare what creates the IRS because nothing does. The Judicial branch refuses to say it. I realize the Judges choose not to address the question(s) but that does not change the fact the question must be answered in a society ruled by laws and due process.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]For this reason, maybe you may consider sending a question to your Senator or Representative in Washington D.C.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Dear Congressman, [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I am ____ years old and have lived for many years with the existence in theory of an Agency named Internal Revenue Service. I am told this agency is an agency of the United States Government. I have diligently researched Title 26 and other Titles of law, as well as Court decisions and cannot find anywhere the identity of any provision of law that creates the Internal Revenue Service. The internet has dawn my attention to this issue and it seems logical it deserves an easily understood answer. [/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Could you please help me understand what creates and allows the Internal Revenue Service to exist and with such power as the power to destroy the liberty and property of any American Citizen living on one of the 50 Tenth Amendment States? If Congress created the Internal Revenue Service, could you point me to the statute at large that allows the Internal Revenue Service to exist and what were the limitations Congress places upon the authority of the Internal Revenue Service. I need to understand it in such a way that I can explain it to my teenage (child or niece or nephew)(you pick which applies in your letter to the Congressman).[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I know you are busy and if you already know the answer then it should not take long to point me in the direction you found yourself so I may quickly and readily answer this question when it comes up in the future.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]From the Congressional District of __________[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Your constituent, ________________________[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]___________________________________________________________________________[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]If you get a response please share it with me. When the Courts refuse to address the issue it is time to take it to Congress and force the issue.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I am not sure where I go from here and am waiting on God to reveal his will to me. But for now, I humbly thank you and pray God continues to lead and guide you in your life's journey without every having to experience the pain of Prison. When something comes up worth sharing I will send it your way. In Jesus name, Lindsey Springer[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]=====================================================[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thank you so much for the support you have given us so far. I pray that you are rewarded for your generosity, both in this life and the next.[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]PayPal:[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]gnutella@mindspring.com[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Mailing address for donations or other inquiries (cash, or blank first name on checks):[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]_________ Springer[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]5147 S. Harvard, #116, Tulsa, OK 74135[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Letters to Lindsey directly (no donations or packages):[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey Springer, 02580-063[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]FCI Big Spring[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]1900 Simler Ave[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Big Spring, TX 79720[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Thanks,[/background]

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Lindsey & Family[/background]

[fg_admin]

Mastering Contracts: The Offer and Acceptance Example

http://youtu.be/Ht7xCtps_c4

[fg_admin]

Basics of Consideration

http://youtu.be/AHMjWoDeWlw

[fg_admin]

Basics of an Offer

http://youtu.be/wJv0PCOSgd4